▲ 106 ▼ Quebec town recognizes trees as living beings with rights. Terrasse-Vaudreuil 1st municipality in Canada to sign on to Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Tree. (www.cbc.ca) submitted 2 months ago by Lemmynated@lemmy.zip to c/world@quokk.au 65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (28 children) Sorry you're a traitor to your species. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children) Sorry you're a traitor to every form of life except your own, lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (19 children) That's not how life works. Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life, until we get down to individual amino acid chains which are very arguably not life the same way a fetus is not life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life... What the hell are you talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (11 children) Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we're driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period. If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously. But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) the earth gave us a place to hold life. Not a traitor to my species, just humble enough to understand we are at the mercy of nature. For example, without the trees we'd not have anything to burn when we found fire. Nor wood houses, nor yes, our furniture. But also no shade to keep us from the sun, no place for the birds and squirrels to nest. Trees give life for many outside our species too. In nature, all is connected. It's graditute, respect, and understanding. Ill edit this if I can find a link, but a national forest removed the wolves from its park. A time later, the trees started dying. Sceince found (and i forget so imma look it up,) somehow the missing wolves lead to the dead trees, so they reintroduced the wolves. I believe deer pop exploded and were eating the trees dead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago How wolves change rivers! permalink fedilink source parent [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago Are you at the mercy of the canned food in your kitchen? Are you at the mercy of the charge in your car's battery? Are you at the mercy of the clothes on your body? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (3 children) youre a capitalist. All these points you make align with capitalism. good work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) You're not capable of making that determination based on your post history. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago aww, you peeked my profile :3 permalink fedilink source parent [–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Bunch of us in agreement here. Keep up the fight, it’s a great example of how not to be for future generations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children) Sorry you're a traitor to every form of life except your own, lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (19 children) That's not how life works. Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life, until we get down to individual amino acid chains which are very arguably not life the same way a fetus is not life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life... What the hell are you talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (11 children) Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we're driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period. If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously. But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (19 children) That's not how life works. Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life, until we get down to individual amino acid chains which are very arguably not life the same way a fetus is not life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life... What the hell are you talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (11 children) Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we're driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period. If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously. But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life... What the hell are you talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children) The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land. And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point. It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition. ...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means? I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved. It's apparently not / that / hard. It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding. It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing. We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point. I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly": I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (11 children) Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we're driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period. If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously. But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period. If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously. But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (9 children) What a fucking stupid world view. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Sorry liberal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I'm a socialist, you moron. I'm also an environmentalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be taking the 'oh human can't effect the environment we're just like cows and trees man we just exist in nature we can't possibly have any effect on it' logic train. There's a reason the CIA invented the hippie movement to help permanently ruin left-wing movements in the US. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children) cough projection cough have fun today capitalist :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Whatever you say, liberal. Hope we really do live in your fantasy world where anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago AnthropoGENic. Anthropomorphic is "shaped like human". An anthropomorphic cat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I didn't say any of that, in fact I said we are an extinction event. How stupid are you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) You are in fact saying that. If we're 'just another animal' and 'just a part of nature,' then logically we can't affect nature any more than any other animal. Meaning anthropomorphic climate change cannot be real under your logic system. Which I personally disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Buddy, algae caused an extinction event. We're not that special, except for the fact that we're killing ourselves and every other living thing on the planet faster than any extinction event in history. anthropomorphic climate change 😂 You can't be serious man. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, which is very real and a reason why we're just another stupid animal using up resources so fast and sloppily that it's going to end with possibly our own extinction. You jump to a lot of conclusions (usually wrong) and end up at some really disgusting places with your thought process. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) the earth gave us a place to hold life. Not a traitor to my species, just humble enough to understand we are at the mercy of nature. For example, without the trees we'd not have anything to burn when we found fire. Nor wood houses, nor yes, our furniture. But also no shade to keep us from the sun, no place for the birds and squirrels to nest. Trees give life for many outside our species too. In nature, all is connected. It's graditute, respect, and understanding. Ill edit this if I can find a link, but a national forest removed the wolves from its park. A time later, the trees started dying. Sceince found (and i forget so imma look it up,) somehow the missing wolves lead to the dead trees, so they reintroduced the wolves. I believe deer pop exploded and were eating the trees dead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago How wolves change rivers! permalink fedilink source parent [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago Are you at the mercy of the canned food in your kitchen? Are you at the mercy of the charge in your car's battery? Are you at the mercy of the clothes on your body? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago How wolves change rivers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago Are you at the mercy of the canned food in your kitchen? Are you at the mercy of the charge in your car's battery? Are you at the mercy of the clothes on your body? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (3 children) youre a capitalist. All these points you make align with capitalism. good work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) You're not capable of making that determination based on your post history. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago aww, you peeked my profile :3 permalink fedilink source parent [–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Bunch of us in agreement here. Keep up the fight, it’s a great example of how not to be for future generations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) You're not capable of making that determination based on your post history. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago aww, you peeked my profile :3 permalink fedilink source parent [–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Bunch of us in agreement here. Keep up the fight, it’s a great example of how not to be for future generations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago aww, you peeked my profile :3 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Bunch of us in agreement here. Keep up the fight, it’s a great example of how not to be for future generations. permalink fedilink source parent